Most of this could be "fixed" through the scenario editor. The problem is getting agreement on how much ammo is the correct amount. Give to much and managing ammo disappears so you just as well eliminate it.

That said, my opinion is ammo isn't the problem, it's the ability to manage ammo that is the problem. The Rebel player in particular gets screwed by this. They have limited artillery and small arms ammo but no way to keep units from wasting it except by extreme means like setting the AI fire range to minimum and facing guns backwards to keep them from firing.

Infantry has only two settings for their auto fire. One hex range and maximum range.

Artillery has three but basically one is useless. Minimum range is usually a good setting but allows enemy troops to operate to close to your lines without worry of getting fired at. Maximum range wastes ammo firing on units it can't possibly damage. Medium range is random so sometimes you are wasting ammo and sometimes you are not.

Infantry needs to be able to have the maximum range they will fire at settable or at least selectable to something other than 1 or 5 hexes.

Artillery needs two or three intermediate settings for range other than random.

Infantry and cavalry units already have the element of fatigue coded in their programing, the code working in each direction: accrual and replacement, specific to the unit involved. Could not such a coding be adapted and applied to ammunition expended and replaced? Furthermore such a coding status could be visibly shown within a unit's display box.

The key to such an arrangement would be in deciding how much ammunition a unit would expend in a 20-minute game turn if it were involved in an offensive fire, defensive fire or full blown melee. Could not an acceptable formula be arrived at which these conditions would be, in the main, historically and realistically acceptable?

As to ammunition replenishment, if the present rules regarding such are maintained, there might be a problem with accepting that, while enough ammo could theoretically be distributed with the unit remaining in line and in close proximity to the enemy, fouled rifles/muskets could render such re-supply mute! Perhaps, in order for a unit to regain its full fire capacity, it would have to be removed from the line for a 20-minute period to clean its weapons.

Additionally, the amount of ammunition resupply would have to be re-evaluated in that kind of system, especially in multiple-day scenarios!

I know that I may be whistling in the dark with this, as a basic unit re-coding addition is probably out of the realm of possibility. But, once again, I will state that we, an organized group of players with a public forum have the capacity for our thoughts and suggestions to be read! Our discussions may ultimately serve to further refine what is already an excellent product into one of even greater value. We have seen over the years that the designer does, on occasion, respond to good suggestions!

_________________General Jos. C. Meyer, ACWGCUnion Army Chief of StaffCommander, Army of the ShenandoahCommander, Army of the Tennessee(2011-2014 UA CoA/GinC)

I would commend Ken Miller's ammo supply system as interesting reading for all. I used it in Overland, especially in the monsters. I believe it is in his engineering site. If you don't see it, I might be able to resurrect it from Overland notes or maybe Ken could post it.

Unfortunately I did not post Robert's Ammo Algorithm there, an oversight I corrected today. You'll find the download at the bottom of the download list on Robert Frost's HPS Enhanced PDT Files page.

As long as I am on the subject, if you have anything about the game system files and how they work that you think might be useful to other club members feel free to contact me and I will look it over and add it to the site if it looks good.

Whatever one's thinking about supply capacity, it can only be changed by modifying the scenario in question. Which leads to the further question: "How interested are the MAJORITY of ACWGC members in the modifying of scenarios? Are they happy just playing the scenarios -- unchanged in any fashion? Maybe a question for the club in general?

Whatever one's thinking about supply capacity, it can only be changed by modifying the scenario in question. Which leads to the further question: "How interested are the MAJORITY of ACWGC members in the modifying of scenarios? Are they happy just playing the scenarios -- unchanged in any fashion? Maybe a question for the club in general?

We have played these games for MANY years, MOSTLY unmodified and there have been hundreds and hundreds of games played that way.

So, IMO, we do not have any dire need to modify supply. That said, any modified scenarios MIGHT get played; how often is any ones guess.

We all appreciate those (and Robert Frost is a prolific one) that have worked hard to make the modifications as they do make the games different.

"...and miles to go before I sleep...." I understand Bob wrote that.Sometimes a modification is a necessary thing. In Chickamauga, the published version of the two day battle has two Union brigades coming on at the wrong location, where they have no chance of influencing the situation. I believe that every game should have a mod potential to fix things like that. Please, if you find any such errors in Overland, let me know!John FerryOverland co-designer

Unlike my namesake I delve little in poetry. I have modified a couple of major scenarios (Gettysburg 007 and Chickamauga 042) to use a base 24 movement system and utilizing a different Weapons Effectiveness table compliments of John Ferry. In both cases I found missing units. In Gettysburg 007 Hood's division had no supply wagon appearing; Chickamauga has a number on both sides. These were units on the battlefield, but that never engaged in the fighting. I suppose this is the reason that they were left out. I guess a point to be made is that the game system can be improved or made more historical, and one need not have any programming experience to do so.

If we had a specific section for feedback (like NWC has already) all the big or small problems could be collected and discussed to see if it really is a problem and if so to find a solution, and that solution could be presented to the scenario maker in the hope for a fix in the next patch.Over the various boards we often have talk about the engines of each series and what they lack but the real lack is a populated forum that collects & process such problems to improve the games & its scenarios, that is the biggest lack of all the Tiller games.

To me it's clear that:A. If the scenario designer is available & willing, we should provide him with feedback to fix errors or other problems. The clubs could test the corrections and see if they work out before they end up in a patch, and all is good the fixes could go into the next patch to improve the games.

B. If the scenario designer is NOT available or willing, we should still collect feedback to a game/scenario and make a mod to fix errors or other problems ourself. The clubs could still test the corrections and see if they work out, and all this could still go into the next patch to improve the games.

It doesn't matter if situation A or B exists for a game but in the end we finally need a place to collect and discuss everything concerning a specific game/scenario.It makes it:- easier for the designer as he as a concentrated place for the feedback to his work - easier for the publisher if the designer is unavailable so the publisher could act himself - easier for the players, not only to see if the questions they have point to a real problem or are nothing to worry about, but also to find a consensus on how to solve that problem if it really exists

I have a similar story to John Ferry, my Bull Run game ended and I checked the facts about 2 Union brigades that were fixed over the complete game, as of now everything points to the fact that they should have been released.But where to place this feedback, especially to assure that someone really takes care of the problem and solves it for the next patch?

Coming back to the questions in the first post, anything regarding ammo should be viewed scenario by scenario. It makes no sense to search for a general answer to a general question and apply this to all games/scenario.If a scenario has too few ammo wagons it may be an error but it also may be purposely done that way to reflect the historical supply situation.So if there is any specific scenario that the initial questions are meant for, it would be a perfect example why we need a feedback section. A thread could be opened in the feedback section of the game and there the questions could be discussed to see if a real problem exists and if so how to correct it.

I agree with the concept of some sort of club site where many of these issues could be aired, discussed, and possibly fixed. But we need to separate the game engine -- totally under Tiller's control -- from those dealing with specific scenarios. The latter are only going to be fixed by members of this club. I don't see designers -- other than John Ferry -- fixing errors in scenarios from 10 years ago. I'm not arguing with you, just stating what I believe to be reality. In some cases it may have been oversight; others by choice. I've always wondered, with the myriad of scenarios available across all of these games, how many have NEVER been played?

1 supply point per 10 men. A division of 4,000 men with a 400 capacity supply wagon would exhaust this ammo over 24 turns of firing (offensive and defensive). This equates to 4 hours of fighting. The division would not be totally out of ammo. Some would be at full supply, some LOW AMMO, some NO AMMO. It would not be able to resupply itself, however. There is little additional supply available in most of the scenarios. This would also apply to Union divisions of 3,000 men. The reality is that CSA divisions tended to be much larger than 4,000 and thus would burn through ammo at a much faster pace. Likewise for Union divisions larger than 3,000. Looking at the way the OOBs are constructed, supply should always be adequate for a 1-day battle, but depending upon the scenario design, not so for multi-day encounters.

It would be interesting to hear from members who have actually COMPLETED 2 or 3-day scenarios. What was the ammunition situation?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum